RE: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Andy... 
- I agree with the fix for spelling error
- I agree with a REF clause needed
- I am not sure about the range to be 100% valid/correct,
  agreed upon etc.

W.r.t. the first 2 points, my intent of the email was to
try and give the direction in which I am looking for a
solution. This is not yet teh I-D that defines those
two new TCs. But thanks for noting the errors

W.r.t. the 3rd point, that is exactly why I want the
IPv6 WG to check on this. Maybe they should
own the document that creates the new TCs.
In fact Biran Carpenter posted to diffserv/rap mailing lists
that the IPv6 has not finalized tehir I-D on what exactly
the IPv6 flowLabel field is/contains. So I have asked him
and IPv6 chair when we can expect the final word.

Clearly people have used different ranges sofar, and
different data types etc. We need to IPv6 folk to
tell us what is best I think.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 28 januari 2003 2:59
> To: Randy Presuhn
> Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny
> 
> 
> At 04:20 PM 1/27/2003 -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> >Hi -
> >
> >> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> >> To: <mibs@ops.ietf.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 1:57 PM
> >> Subject: FW: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny
> >>
> >
> >> Just in case any of you has a comment or concern
> >...
> >>   FlowIdOrAny       TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
> >>       DISPLAY-HINT "d"
> >>       STATUS        current
> >>       DESCRIPTION  "The flow identifier or flow lable in an IPv6
> >>                     header that may be used to discriminate traffic
> >>                     flows.  The value of -1 is used to indicate a
> >>                     wildcard, i.e. any value.
> >>                    "
> >>       SYNTAX        Integer32 (-1 | 0..1048575)
> >...
> >
> >Does it worry anyone else that objects defined using this TC would
> >not be usable in INDEX clauses?
> 
> No.  If there are any MIBs planned or in progress that want to
> create a table that would need to model a 'wildcard flow' then
> I would change my mind.  Is 1048576 a safe choice?
> 
> I'm more concerned about:
>   - label misspelled in the DESCRIPTION clause
>   - range in the SYNTAX clause should be -1..1048575
>   - missing REFERENCE clause
> 
> 
> >Randy
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
>